ACIT 15(2)(1), MUMBAI V. KIMPLAS PIPING SYSTEMS LTD, NASHIK

ITA 1187/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4874 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 271(1)(c); 44AD; 143(3); 27

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1187/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ) ACIT-15(2)(1) ROOM NO. 357, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. VS. M/S KIMPLAS PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. B-20, ADDITIONAL MIDC AREA, AMBAD, NASHIK- 422010. PAN: AAACG3404H APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR RAI (DR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NISHIT GANDHI (AR) DATE OF HEARING : 16.04.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 22.05.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE UNDER SECTION 253 OF INCOME- TAX ACT (ACT) IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 24, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LD. CIT(A)] DAT ED 03.11.2017 IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.3,11,27,792/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE T O EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/ S. 35(2AB) AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,07,37,194/- WAS MADE EVEN AFTER REVISING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THEREBY INDICATI NG DELIBERATE FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH WOULD HAVE E SCAPED THE TAX, AND ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 2 THEREFORE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , MUMBAI ON THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND TRADER OF ELECTRO FUSING FITTINGS, FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 27.11.2013 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 20,84,2 0,735/-. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 09.02.2016 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DISALLOWED RS. 10,07,3 7,194/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) AND INITIATED TH E PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NO FURTHER APPEAL WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AGAINST SUCH DISA LLOWANCE. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) DATED 09.02.2016 FOR LEVYING PENALTY. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY DATED 09 .08.2016 ON 24.08.2016. IN THE REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THEY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) OF RS. 14,84,39,194/- (200% O F RS. 7,42,19,597/-) ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED ACCOUNT. THE ACCOUNT WAS DULY CERTIFIED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT (C.A). THE ASSESS EE FILED APPLICATION BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (DSIR) AUTHORITIES/APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. THE APPROPRIAT E AUTHORITY APPROVED THE CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,38,51,000/- VIDE A PPROVAL DATED ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 3 07.05.2014. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE REV ISED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME VIDE APPLICATION DATED 19.01.2016 AND REV ISED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) OF RS. 4,77,02,000/-. THE REV ISED COMPUTATION WAS ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER STATED THAT NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED AT THE TIME O F FILING RETURN OF INCOME. THE CLAIM WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AND WAS BONAFIDE. 4. THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D HAVE MADE HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) AFTER PROP ER APPROVAL FROM COMPETENT AUTHORITY (DSIR, NEW DELHI). IT WAS ONLY DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTED AND WITHDRAWN THE EXCESS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PENALTY @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO B E EVADED, ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,07,37,194/-. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WORKED OUT THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,11,27,792/- IN ITS ORDER DATED 29.08.2016. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ENTIRE PENALTY WAS DELET ED. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY THAT NO SPECIFIC LIMB IN THE PE NALTY NOTICE WAS CLEARLY SPECIFIED. THUS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DEPARTMENT REPR ESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ( AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE L D. DR FOR THE REVENUE ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 4 SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH IS CLEARLY SPECIFIED IN PARA 3.4 OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS VERY WELL AWARE ABOUT THE CHARGE OF THE PENALTY. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT ISSUE I N THE PRESENT APPEAL STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIO N OF HONORABLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VERSUS AMOLI ORG ANICS PRIVATE LTD (TAX APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2014 DATED 22 ND OF APRIL 2014), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A MARE DENIAL OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 35(2AB) WOULD NOT LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY DESPITE THE FACT S THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. AND THE DECISION OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN JCIT VERSUS CROMPTON GREAVES LTD IN ITA NO. 2676/MUMBAI/ 2016 DATED 31 MAY 2017. 7. IN SECOND ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED AR S UBMITS THAT AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VERSUS TORRENT PHARMACEU TICALS LTD (ITA NO.3569 /AHD /2004) HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXPEND ITURE AS APPROVED /STATED IN FORM 3CL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF SCIENTIFI C AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35 (2AB ). IN THIRD THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ITS CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AVAILABLE AT T HE TIME OF FILING OF ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 5 RETURN AND WAS APPROPRIATELY DISCLOSED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE ACCOUNTS. ADMITTEDLY THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) AS STATED IN THE RETURN ARE TRUE AN D CORRECT. NOT ONLY THAT SAID CLAIM WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT WHICH WAS UPLOADED ALONG WITH RETURN FILED. THE ONLY REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE WAS FORM 3CD ISSUED BY THE DSIR WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 13 MAY 201 4 I.E. AROUND AFTER SIX MONTHS AFTER FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS SETTLED POSITION THAT WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) COULD BE LEVIED SINCE THERE IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR IS OF INCOME N OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN SUCH CASES. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VERSUS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD (3 22 ITR 158 SC). 8. IN FOURTH ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT PENALT Y HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND W HATSOEVER. IT WAS IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO ON WHAT CHARGE THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY AND ON WHAT CHARGE HE HAS LEVIED THE PENALT Y. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE EXPLANATION-1 OF SECTION 271(1) WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO CONCEALMENT BUT APPARENTLY LEVIED PENALTY ON THE GROUND OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS SUCH THE PENA LTY WITHOUT ANY ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 6 APPLICATION OF MIND AND HENCE UNSUSTAINABLE, THEREF ORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) APPEAL HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY. IN S UPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED UP ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PCIT VS SAMSON PERINCHERI (ITA NO.1154 OF 2014), GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VE RSUS LAKADHIR LALJI (85 ITR 77 GUJARAT). 9. IN FIFTH ALTERNATIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBMISS ION THE LEARNED AR SUBMITS THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN DENYING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) TO THE ASSESSEE IS A POSSIBLE VIEW (THOUGH CONTRARY TO THE DECISIONS RELIED BY ASSESSE E), STILL THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE ISSUE, THEREFORE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CIT VS HARSVARDHAN CHEMICA LS & MINERALS LTD (259 ITR 212 RAJASTHAN). 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE AL SO DELIBERATED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WE LL AS BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFIC ER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.10,07,37,194/-. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY @100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WHICH WORK S OUT TO BE RS.3,11,27,792/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY BY TAKING HIS VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MADE HIS CLAIM O F DEDUCTION UNDER ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 7 SECTION 35(2AB) AFTER PROPER APPROVAL FROM COMPETEN T AUTHORITY (DSIR, NEW DELHI). EVEN THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) WAS NOT APPROVED BY DSIR AND ONLY PART OF CLAIM WAS APPROVED, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO THE EX TENT OF ITS APPROVAL. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THAT ASSESS EE ACCEPTED AND WITHDRAWN THE EXCESS CLAIM. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) TH E ASSESSEE, BESIDES MAKING SUBMISSIONS ON MERIT, MADE THEIR SUBMISSIONS THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 RWS 271(1) DATED 09.02.201 6 WAS NOT VALID. IN THE NOTICE, THE AO HAS NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPR IATE PORTION SPECIFYING, IF THE NOTICE IS ISSUED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF SUCH INCOME . THE LD CIT(A) AFTER PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274RWS 271(1) C ONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BOTHERED TO FILL THE BLANKS W ITH THE APPROPRIATE LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1) (C) AND THAT HE HAS NOT AP PLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF WHICH REASON THE PENALTY NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND HELD THAT PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE LD CIT(A) WHILE DELETING TH E PENALTY RELIED ON THE DECISION OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN MANJUNATHA COTT ON & GINNING FACTORY (359 ITR 566) AND THE CASE LAW IN SSAS EME RALD MEADOWS [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC). NO CONTRARY FACTS OR LAW IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. 11. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SAMSON PER INCHERY (SUPRA) WHILE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT IN CIT ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 8 VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (359 ITR 56 5) HELD THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE AO TO RECORD ITS SATISFACTION ON THE GROUND OF WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED, IT CANNOT BE ON A FRESH GROUND ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS NO NOTICE. ADMITTEDLY WHILE ISSUING TH E NOTICE, THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED BY NOT STRIKING OUT THE IRRELEVANT PO RTION IN THE NOTICE. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY ON CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ITS SATISFACTION THAT ACT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL. FROM THE OVERALL FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASE DO NOT JUSTIFY THE IMP OSITION OF PENALTY AS THE AO HAS NEITHER RECORDED ITS SATISFACTION ABOUT THE DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL ACT OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR RECORDED SATIS FACTION ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME NOR SPECIFIED THE SPECIFIC CHARGE WHILE I SSUING NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE NOTICE ISSUED BY T HE AO IS ITSELF INVALID. 12. THE REVENUE/ ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FILED EVEN S INGLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. TH E LD CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 2 74 RWS 271(1) WAS NOT VALID, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BOTHERED TO BRING ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISION OF EXPLAINATION-1 OF SECTION 271(1) AND RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DESPITE GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPL ANATION. ON THE CONTRARY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN PARA 2 OF THE PENALTY ORDER ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 9 DATED 29.08.2016 DULY RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED ITS REPLY DATED 09.08.2016 RECEIVED IN HIS OFFICE ON 24.08.2016. TH E CONTENTS OF THE REPLY IS ALSO REFEREED BY HIM IN THE ORDER ITSELF. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A), WHICH WE AFFIRM. 13. THOUGH, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED CROSS OBJECTION TO SUPPORT THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ON MERIT, YET ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S GOOD CASE ON MERIT AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS AMOLI ORGANICS P. LTD (SUPRA) THAT MERE DENIAL OF C LAIM UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) WOULD NOT LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC TION271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE LD AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE, THUS, NEED S CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE NOTED THAT HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT V S AMOLI ORGANICS P. LTD (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION WHETH ER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSCIOUSLY MAD CLAIM OF UNDUE DEDUCTION OF SECTION35(2AB) IN THE RETURN OF INCOME EVEN THOUGH IT DID NOT RECEIVED THE REQUISITE CERTIFICATE IN THE FORM 3CD FROM THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD T HAT IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) THE ASSESSEE WITHDR EW SUCH CLAIM SINCE IT FAILED IN SUCH CHALLENGED BEFORE CIT(A) BY THEM. IF THE EXPENSES INCURRED GENUINELY HAD BEEN CLAIMED IN THE RETURN O F INCOME, REJECTING ITA NO. 1187 MUM 2018-M/S KIMPLA S PIPING SYSTEMS LTD. 10 THE CLAIM MAY NOT RESULT IN TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NOR WOULD THE WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM IS SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE SAID TO BE CONCEALMENT. IN OUR VIEW THIS DEC ISION IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PR ESENT CASE. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY COORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUN AL IN JCIT VS M/S CROMPTON GREAVES LTD (SUPRA). THUS, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO IS NOT JUSTIFIABL E ON MERIT AS WELL. SINCE, WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON TWO ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE; THEREFO RE, THE DISCUSSIONS ON OTHER SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/05/2019. SD/- SD /- G.S. PANNU PAWAN SINGH VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 22.05.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI